Life, Oh Life, Ooohhh Liiiiife, Oh Life…(doo doo doo doo)

Question from Madnomas:
I just read your response to the question regarding biogenesis. While you gave the only answer you could have, it is severely lacking. To claim that it “is unlikely that the conditions could have been right at least once in the distant past” (paraphrasing) is a gross over reach. If abiogenesis were “not unlikely,” one would presumably be able to predict that the more we learn about the earliest life forms, the less complex these forms would appear, and the more likely the conditions that might be able to generate life would what we’ve found. However, it is exactly the opposite. Even the earliest life is infinitely complex. Not only is life extremely complex but has as its foundation, information. So, as we discover more about early life and the conditions surrounding the early atmosphere, it has only become more improbable, but without mutation and selection to fall back, we have to account for the appearance of information. So instead of casually brush off this extremely potent evidence for a creator, as understandably would for convenience, this is still a monumental challenge for atheism to address. Unfortunately, it’s only becoming more improbable with each new discovery.

Answer by SmartLX:
There is no physical or chemical barrier to an increase in the amount of information on Earth as long as we have the Sun, even before the emergence of life. I’ve explained this briefly here.

The first life was complex but it was less complex than much of modern life, unless you think human beings are no more complex than bacteria. And the Miller-Urey experiment gets a lot of flak but it proved beyond doubt that the introduction of electricity (via lightning) can produce amino acids, so inorganic processes do important work and therefore not all of the complexity had to pop up at once.

Not knowing how something happened is not an argument that it didn’t happen, except for an argument from ignorance. Eliminating every possible method might be evidence for same, but that clearly hasn’t happened as long as there are potentially viable models, and in this case there are lots. And the proposed alternative requires that we assume the presence and participation for an entity not only for which there is no evidence, but about which nothing is agreed upon even hypothetically. It would be much stronger to establish the existence of God without the requirement of faith and then argue that God created life than to support God with apparent creation.

Allow me to declare that in my opinion you are a fool, in thinking that the more of complexity in a more distant past proves the necessity and thus the existence of a creator of the first forms of life on earth.
This sentence of yours, the only thing it proves is that you are an ignorant and stupid idiot.
And, that SmartLX is your opposite.
Myself, too.

By all perspectives these are still simple compared to to the other complex organism, or for that matter the truly simple but complex organisms. And once again, the question needs to be asked, and it isn’t unfair to assume that these molecules that you speak of, of also having a programmig, ànd so why not ask the question who programmed the molecules?

There is exactly zero reason to assume that molecules are “programmed”, because there is no evidence of such programming. Why assume something that has no empirical data even hinting at such a thing. That’s nothing more than a god of the gaps argument there…

“There is exactly zero reason to assume that molecules are “programmed”
What do you mean? Do molecules operate in a constant manner. This is already one reason that suggests that there is a programming involved. We can not negate something just because we can not imagine how it was done. There is order and order suggests programming.
“no empirical data even hinting at such a thing.” yet this is exactly what the Atheist has done in making the big bang theory and evolution as the go to answer for everything and life.
And I know what I have said could negate what I have mentioned that how could life just pop into being. But remember as far as we have observed. Life just doesn’t pop into existence. It has always come from another with life. That is what we have observed and we should not lift up an assumed theory and give support to it, without first having been able to duplicate this theory in a laboratory, or finding evidence that supports that assumption. Even with our clumsy attempts to make life in a laboratory, we are using material that has life. Using programmed pieces of life to duplicate. And we are life doing this. Go on. put these chemicals in their simple forms, exposed to what would be most assuredly a milder climate than anything your life essence would have been exposed to if indeed it just popped into existence under the volition of nothing. I know that this has been done with a concocted primordial ooze for many years and as to date the scientist have found nothing more then swamp gas. Leave everything on its own and lets see what you get with out an intelligence dictating the where to’s and where for’s.

No, order does not suggest programming. Isn’t your god ordered? So what programmed it? Oops, there we are again, back to the same logical paradox that you create when you say life has to come from life.

I don’t have the first clue why things are ordered verses variable. Why don’t you look that up for us and let us know what you find…

Gerald writes: [yet this is exactly what the Atheist has done in making the big bang theory and evolution as the go to answer for everything and life.]

The Big Bang theory deals with the start of the universe. The theory of evolution deals with the changes in living things over time. Neither one deals with the start of life, and they certainly don’t deal with “everything”. Thanks for the hyperbole though. My repeated attempts over the last 1+ year to teach you what each scientific theory deals with was a colossal waste of time apparently. Did you want to continue talking about life, or do you want to mash up scientific theories some more? Just let me know…

What we have observed is that life is made 100% out of non-living parts. Two conglomorations of non-living atoms and molecules (your parents) made another conglomorate of non-living atoms and molecules (you). That’s what we observe. Non-life in certain structures can have the property of “life”.

Gerald writes: [we should not lift up an assumed theory and give support to it, without first having been able to duplicate this theory in a laboratory, or finding evidence that supports that assumption.]

This is where I ask you for the evidence of the assumed hypothesis that you call god. Of course you don’t have any, and will ignore this part completely like you always do, and will fail to have the courage to admit as much. But every one that reads this material sees through your charade…

Niki. Please pass this onto SmartLx. He said this. “The first life was complex but it was less complex than much of modern life, unless you think human beings are no more complex than bacteria.” But he forgot to show proof that the life was anything else, less or more, than what we see it is today. After all if we compare all organisms, every different type that we have all around, simple and complex, they all are giving the same type of organism as they were. And this pattern has been seen over and over again without fail for the last 6 or seven thousand years. So if we compare what you stated< (without evidence mind you), to what we have been seeing for all these years, it is highly unlikely and impossible that any organism has ever been anything other than what they are today.

Just to let you know there’s no need to play Telephone, I get alerted to each comment.

I’ll reply to this one while I’m here. The life wasn’t what it is today because modern life in all its forms leaves fossils. There are plenty of arguments between creationists and everyone else about the nature of fossils and their implications, but the presence or absence of fossils is much more clear-cut. Below certain levels in the strata different types of fossil cease to appear, because certain plants and animals didn’t exist before certain time periods. Go low enough and you find none at all, because the life that did exist wasn’t complex enough to form bones, shells, cartilage or any other bodily feature rigid enough to make a recognisable mark in the rock. A byproduct of evolution was a gradually increasing fossil “footprint” by volume and type.

You as other Atheists have assumed wrong before, just as your assumption about fossils is in error today. Science has had to adjust its position many times on many theories over the years, until they got it right. And I’m telling you. Evolution will end up being the worst of all the theories that has been assumed and found out to be impossible since the flat earth theory or the theory of spontaneous generation. They found no proof for these and they don’t have proof for evolution

Well it is hard to reply to what you post when you don’t place a reply link in with what you post. But I appreciate that you responded so timely. And Niki, more than a few individuals consider that complexity, is one of the best evidences that suggest a designer. That you and others who themselves would fall all over themselves if someone would suggest that that the Mercedes or Leer Jets that you drive or fly could ever have just been pieced together accidentally. You all would never even think such an impossible occurrence. Why? Because the complexity and and obvious design could never have happened without an intelligence. And when you look at the complexity of the simplest cell, that is around to day, and by all logical reasoning would have been around when the first cell appeared upon this earth. I know that SmartLx, and maybe a few other Atheists and evolutionist are presuming that there had to have been some type of evolution from the first cells that appeared and the ones that are still around today, yet their presumptions are all the evidence that they can supply as any kind of evidence. In all of the organisms that we have today, we see only an offspring that resembles them when that offspring appear. There is no sign of physical change in any organism. And when the fossils of organisms have been uncovered, if there are any of the same organisms still present form what is supposedly millions and millions of years old, the fossils of the “millions of years old” organisms still resemble the same organisms that are still present today. This pattern has never changed. Even when scientists have exposed fruit flies and bacteria, to different kinds of changes of their environments these organisms, even after hundreds of generations have come and gone, those organisms still resemble the original organisms that the scientists started out with. So no matter how much they think that there were organisms that evolved into becoming any other kind of organism, the evidence shows that each organism only produces copies of themselves, and do not evolve into another type of organism. And this evidence has been observed by x number of observers, times x number of organisms over thousands of years. That is what we should be using as facts when we consider the scientific model, not the maybe’s and we think’s that have been used to support the theory of evolution, making science a laughing stock from all other disciplines of study.

Madnomas – To state that the earliest life forms were “infinitely complex” is rather hyperbole of you. There exists in nature molecules that make copies of themselves. They aren’t alive in any way, but they split in two and start building up again. It’s just a chemical property of those particular molecules. Simple lipids, which can be found in limatic clays, form membranes that repel water all by themselves (and lipids are still used by life forms today to make cell membranes). Nothing “infinitely complex” about a replicating molecule getting surrounded by a lipidic membrane. The first protobiot possibly.

You stated correctly. “they aren’t alive”. And they have been not being alive since for ever. And no where do we see them becoming alive. So there is no reason to assume that they ever became alive, at least not without an intelligence making them living.

Madnomas – To address another point separately: You make the statement about the “appearance of information”. Which molecule in your body is “information”? Those same molecules can exist outside your body as well, so are they still “information” at that point? What exists is chemistry, and the interaction between molecules and the reactions from those interactions. There is no information in your body, just chemistry.

You also make this remark: “So instead of casually brush off this extremely potent evidence for a creator, as understandably would for convenience, this is still a monumental challenge for atheism to address.” There actually is no evidence for a creator being, but that’s not the point I want to make. Why any cultist would think not using a god as an answer for everything is “convenient” is beyond me. Believers can just say “my god did it” and move along. As an atheist I have the monumental task of gathering evidence and data and figuring out what happened. Hardly convenient…

I am genuinely curious, have they decided definitively what the conditions of the early earth were in which non-life created life? Because the experiment where the amino acids were created by shocking a solution and then immediately trapping it (thereby isolating it from the surrounding conditions it would have naturally stayed and failed to form in) was done under circumstances that have since been changed. Also, you will not find one single scientist that will say they know definitively how life began from nothing…only how it possibly might have. Maybe. So my second question would have to be when coming from the viewpoint of an atheist, how can you put so much faith into something that you cannot see, has never been proven, and could realistically not have ever happened (non-life creating life) yet completely disregard the idea of a creator that has many of the same issues that require faith? Honestly. Is it simply that you don’t want to believe? Because you sure sound like you’re trying hard to convince others of virtual impossibility, albeit on the opposite side of divine intervention.

To answer your first question, no one can definitely state what the early Earth was like, either in the atmosphere or the oceans. We can deduce general things about it based on rocks dated to that time, but specifics are not known. I highly doubt they ever will be for that matter. And I totally agree that no scientist claims to know exactly how life appeared. Science doesn’t make that claim because science doesn’t know for sure, and science isn’t afraid to admit it either (unlike religious claims I might add).

The experiment you speak of is of course the Miller-Urey experiment, from 1952. That was 65 years ago. A lot of research and testing has been done since then, and the technology used to investigate the origins of life has gotten much more precise and accurate. Miller-Urey was the first cubic foot on the tip of the proverbial iceberg. It is just one tiny bit of an enormous amount of data. Since then we’ve discovered hydrothermal vents (1977) where all manner of energy and a soup of chemicals are emitted into the ocean waters. Since then we’ve discovered that comets and meteorites in deep space contain many different amino acids, sugars, and even alcohols (Murchison Meteorite 1969 is one such example). Such things fall to Earth all the time, even more often in the early solar system. Since then we’ve found that there are molecules that self-replicate, making copies of themselves, even though they are not alive in any sense of the word (Ghadiri, DH Lee, Eigen, and Ekland are some some of the researchers in this area). Also in 2007, after Miller died, his flasks were unsealed and many more amino acids were discovered that couldn’t be detected in his day. The question about the formation and/or source of amino acids is much more known today then it was in 1952.

To answer your second question, I would like to break it down into different parts:

1) I don’t have faith in anything. By faith I mean an acceptance of something despite zero data or empirical evidence. So asking why I have “faith” in a naturalistic explanation isn’t accurate. Why? Because we do have some data and empirical evidence. First and foremost, there is nothing about any living thing that violates any of the laws of chemistry, physics, thermodynamics, or any other law of the universe. In other words, life IS possible under the rules of the universe. You and I are evidence of that. We also know that simple lipids form water tight membranes all of their own (cells still use lipids for membranes today). We know there are replicating molecules. Some of those replicating molecules just so happen to be RNA ligases too in modern life forms. It is easily conceivable that one possible way the first protobiot began was a replicating molecule inside a lipidic membrane. Since it is possible, it is worth investigating.

I would also point out that “life from non-life” is really a misnomer. Every single atom in your body, right now, is NOT alive. You are made up 100% of non-living material. You ARE non-life material.

2) A creator, on the other hand, is 100% speculative. There is exactly zero empirical data for the existence of such a creature, or that the supernatural exists. Exactly zero. Faith is the ONLY way you can accept the claim of gods, because no evidence exists for them. And we all know that there isn’t any either, or else Gerald or James or some other believer would have posted it by now. There’d be billboards up all over the highways of America with the data shown for all to see. Gods are a matter of conjecture, nothing more.

In fact, proving that a god created life is actually more work. First, you have to prove that the god creature actually exists. I suppose you’d start with your favorite particular flavor of god, but you’d probably need to make sure the Greek or Aztec or Egyptian gods are real too just to be safe. Then you’d have to prove that this god, whichever one it is, actually created anything. Just because a god exists doesn’t mean it created anything. It’s entirely possible that a god exists, and had nothing to do with the start of life on Earth. The existence of god(s) doesn’t automatically prove life was created. Maybe a god exists and life happened naturally anyway.

3) I find it odd how often cultists think that atheists just “don’t want to believe”. Like we think there is a god, but it would cramp our lifestyle to believe in it, so we just don’t believe so we can lead hedonistic lives of sex and debauchery. I can’t figure out what would lead you to think it’s a matter of choice. Please note that I cannot speak for every atheist, but for the ones I do know as well as myself, I simply can’t believe in gods. There is no evidence for them. There is no evidence for the supernatural. The Christian god in particular has multiple logical paradoxes about it that make the notion absurd.

My brain has examined the information available, and reached the rational decision. It’s not a choice, it’s a conclusion.

“A creator, on the other hand, is 100% speculative. There is exactly zero empirical data for the existence of such a creature, or that the supernatural exists. Exactly zero.” Zero empirical evidence? You are here aren’t you? That is evidence. You speculating that it may have accidentally occurred, in another way is doesn’t mean that the evidence is only for what you speculate. The evidence is the evidence, and until you are able to substantiate that your assumption carries more weight then any other assumption then the evidence could pertain just as much to the Intelligent Design theory. But at least if you use logical reasoning and take into consideration that it has only been observed that something with life is what has only brought another life into being. Life comes from something else or some one else that is alive. So the theory that a spark of life just became alive is not in line with what we have observed, that life come from life. So to assume otherwise is to ignore what has always been observed. And that is not logical. Just as it is not logical to assume that one species somehow morphed into any and all of the other species. It has been observed that each species has only made that same species. There has never ever been anything other than that observed. And to do what some of the Atheists have done, to take a fossil, and try to extrapolate backwards just how the fossil came be as it did, ignoring what has already been observed, is plumb illogical. Making up nonsense to use for an assumption instead of what has already been observed and is still being observed today.

I can’t disagree with your logic. The truth is your world view is not a far fetched and insane way of seeing or approaching what we can discern from the things around us. It makes sense. And as much as I’m sure others and myself would like to be able to convince you the God does exist, the truth is, and I feel 100% confident on this point, I will NEVER be able to prove it definitively. Nor that the Christian God is the one true God. I could use circular logic, sure, but that would never work. I could try testimony, but that could be explained away by the power of positive thinking. Prayer? Coincidence. Everything being in the exact perfect place and distance in space? Luck and an infinite amount of tries for the universe to get it right. So I could never win the empirical debate. It’s not going to happen. So my goal is not to convince you as much as it is to just ask questions. The newest thing now that science it trying to tell us, though I suppose the theory has been around for several decades, is that we are in a simulation. Which again points to intelligent design. I don’t believe the simulation theory by the way, just thought it was neat. Also, the atoms not being alive is arguing semantics. That’s like trying to determine if I’m real and you’re just a character in my reality or vice versa. To be or not to be. By that admission nothing is really life. How do we differentiate what is and isn’t life? It felt very contrived because I believe you understood the context of what was meant by life from non-life and yet you answered super literally in order to be correct. Both a table and a chicken are made from non “living” atoms, but a table will never spawn a chicken.

I don’t go for the simulation concept either. It seems a rather silly waste of time, which is just one person’s opinion.

I understood precisely the context of what you meant by life and non-life, and I felt it important that you understand that there really is no clear demarcation between the two. I don’t see my answer as super literal so much as super accurate. Nothing I said there is false. Structure matters in chemistry. Take a certain number of protons and neutrons and electrons and you get oxygen. Take those exact same pieces, add more of each type, and you can get gold. Are any of the protons, neutrons, or electrons “gold” by themselves? No. But put the right number in the right structure, and you get the properties of “gold”. For whatever reason, the structures in our brains can retain data points and recall them. It’s the structure that is important.

[Both a table and a chicken are made from non “living” atoms, but a table will never spawn a chicken.]

And a chicken will never spawn a table. Can you swap out carbon atoms between the two without affecting which is a chicken and which is a table? Yes. It’s not the pieces, it’s the structure…

“Can You” being the operating words here. Someone with intelligence can swap out and reprogram. But you don’t ever see it happening on their own. What is tends to stay what is, until enacted upon by an intelligence causing circumstances to change so as to make a change. Species remain the same except when an intelligence attempts to change it. But then only the covering is somewhat changed not what it essentially was in the beginning. And these changes can be reversed engineered, making it highly likely that the changes had been already preprogrammed into the DNA.

Gerald, “Can you” was the question, and it was already answered. Carbon is carbon, regardless of what molecule it is a part of, or where that molecule happens to be. There is no “life” molecule, only non-living molecules. That you can’t seem to understand and/or accept this doesn’t make it any less true.

Species do not remain the same, and there are billions of fossils, sequenced genomes of most living things, and billions of other facts that support this being true.

You can’t prove design, or programming, or any of the other speculation you write daily at this website, and everyone knows it.

Please educate yourself about the science of these things so that the constant correcting of your posts can be brought to a merciful end…

You know you are mistaken. You know the Charles Darwin himself said that there should have been more fossilized proof for his theory and he was speechless as to the reason that there were no evidences for the theory of Evolution at his time. Years later even after tons of more fossilized had been unearthed, the then evolutionists once again cried out in frustration at the lack of evidence that was being dug up to support Evolution. Now these are the evolutionists themselves who are making these statements. And as early as 2000 and earlier. So I don’t know what you are digging up your evidence from, but it certainly not from the archeological digs that the field evolutionists are digging at. So if there are billions of these fossils why aren’t we able to see an actual specie protruding from a previous specie? Or a fossilized egg showing the newer species. And even more than this why aren’t we seeing the morphing taking place right now right before our eyes? And even more than that, why aren’t we morphing into the next step up? Since what ever started the morphing process, has perfected it by now so that it could spit out newer species right and left all around us. Why are the Atheists and Evolutionists have to content themselves with trying to make the case that the little adaptations that are going on all around us are the actual same forces of evolution that caused all the different species to appear as they do now. Yet surely those species had to have had some fossils laying around showing from the other species that they were derived from. All horses still look like horses. All beetles still look like beetles and all bacteria look like the same versions of bacteria. They haven’t even been morphed from another kind of bacteria. Everything looks the same and are classified the same. Even with all the monkeying around that the breeders are doing, the subjects of their interests still appear as the first ones they started working with. So you really need to come up for air and accept the fact, that Evolution is a bust.

I have just one thing about your attempt to pull the rug out, or the foundation, from under the weak and insipid theory of evolution. Your question and many others similar to yours have been pushed aside and ignored for years, by the atheist and the backward science they have been attempting to put in place of true science. All of what they have been offering as proof or evidence show nothing that can actually be accepted as substantive to support their assumptions.

“Which molecule in your body is “information”? Those same molecules can exist outside your body as well, so are they still “information” at that point”. Interesting point that you bring up Tim. It is however also interesting that the molecules react differently inside and outside. As though they were programmed to react differently?

No, molecules do not react differently inside the body compared to outside! Considering how often in the past I have made a point of explaining that nothing about living things violate the laws of the universe, INCLUDING the laws of chemistry, I find it incomprehensible that you’d write such a blatantly erroneous sentence. You should know better by now. But given your track record of inability to learn about the things you try to discuss, this has become standard operating procedure I’m afraid.

That “interesting point” was actually a question back to Madnomas, Gerald. There was no “interesting point” there…

Please just show us the proof that is sorely lacking and long overdue from the camp of the atheist and evolutionist. Stop throwing up smoke screens trying to distract from the answers we need to be able to accept what you are saying about evolution is true. Give us the proof and not the “we think’s” or “maybe’s” or “it is possible’s”. They mean nothing without verifiable, and a duplicated demonstration of what the evolutionists claim to have happened actually becoming happening again.

“Entropy Definition. Entropy is defined as the quantitative measure of disorder or randomness in a system. The concept comes out of thermodynamics, which deals with the transfer of heat energy within a system.Aug 24, 2016” From: “https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=entropy+definition+physics”
“This view of the second law of thermodynamics is very popular, and it has been misused. Some argue that the second law of thermodynamics means that a system can never become more orderly. Not true. It just means that in order to become more orderly (for entropy to decrease), you must transfer energy from somewhere outside the system, such as when a pregnant woman draws energy from food to cause the fertilized egg to become a complete baby, completely in line with the second line’s provisions.”From: https://www.thoughtco.com/entropy-definition-calculation-and-misconceptions-2698977”
“If entropy increases, order has been lost. If it decreases, order has emerged or been created. The point of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is that entropy can’t decrease without increasing by at least as much in some connected object or area. In other words, it can’t decrease overall in a closed system.”From: “http://asktheatheist.com/?p=898”
Where is the evidence for any of this? Especially for what you have purported. Even in the example that you gave, of the mother and baby. That baby is already in a state of perfection, just as it came into being within the mother. It is able to maintain its growth without any help from the mother. The cycle to do so, was set into motion upon conception of the fetus. Anything that is absorbed had in itself been provided from a source brought to fruition, not being broken down but making it what it needed to be in order to maintain the natural course, or the natural laws of the universe.
And how can you show that everything, everything was not and is not one system? The Atheists maintains that it all happened at once. So does the Creationist. Where do you get any kind of evidence that leads the Atheist to assume that there is another system? The Bible says that all was in chaos. You assume that there is somewhere else to provide energy to make that change from chaos to orderly. But you can not prove another place. You have no idea how this place came to be, in chaos or not. You make assumptions and provide no evidence. Yet you expect those assumptions to be held as non controversial. The Christian maintains that all was created by One who has, who is power incarnate.
“John 1: (KJV)3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made” Just as you can not prove your theory you can not disprove this one. But the very fact that you have not been able to recreate your theory in a laboratory should allow the other theory to hold at the very least, as much possibility as of the one you assume.

“This view of the second law of thermodynamics is very popular, and it has been misused. Some argue that the second law of thermodynamics means that a system can never become more orderly. Not true. It just means that in order to become more orderly (for entropy to decrease), you must transfer energy from somewhere outside the system,”

“This view of the second law of thermodynamics is very popular” just when does being popular make it correct.

“Some argue that the second law of thermodynamics means that a system can never become more orderly. Not true. It just means that in order to become more orderly (for entropy to decrease), you must transfer energy from somewhere outside the system,”
Tell me just where has your theory that you need to transfer energy from somewhere else? We have rocks elements that under the proper conditions that equal energy. We have enough intelligence to harness that energy. Why do you assume that a much higher intelligence could not have utilized this energy to effect the change. But this is to show that you have not, all of the Atheists, grasping at anything to keep the sorry excuse of Evolution as a theory. Talking, without thinking. And hoping someone else won’t realize your mistake. These points that I have just introduced, knocks your assumptions right back to the drawing board. The thermodynamic theory is sound but your attempt to utilize it is in error. You are once again as the Atheist have always done, inputted wrong factors and getting skewed quotients. If this universe was all created all at once. By a being that is able to do way more by just thinking than we can with all of our tools, does not need to worry about material to achieve His objective. He wields energy as easy as we are able to use a screwdriver. Psalm 33:9 “for he spoke and it was he commanded and it stood fast” Look at our faltering attempts to control the atom. What we are able to do today was unheard of. Who knows what we will be able to do later. But someone was able to do on a much larger scale than we could ever conceive. That is why all is as it is today, minus the effect of sin. So how can you negate the possibility that there could be someone that performed this miracle, when we are able to mismanage what we are doing?

“Isn’t your god ordered? So what programmed it? Oops, there we are again, back to the same logical paradox that you create when you say life has to come from life” Question. Are you willing to go to any lengths to believe what you want to believe? Even to the point of refusing to accept what is truth? “That’s what we observe. Non-life in certain structures can have the property of “life”.” This like every thing else that the Atheist comes up with come out without any kind of proof. They, you make statements but for some reason you all feel that the need to produce the proof to substantiate your statements are unnecessary. You know that “Non life in certain structures can have the property of life” has no proof. And even if it did have a resemblance of life, break down just how it would have been possible for this almost life to be able to perform all that you say you believe it was able to do with out the necessary programming to be able to guide it through the necessary lengths it would have needed to perform, (knowingly or innately), so to ensure its survival. If it came without some intelligence making it, it would have merely remained where it came to be until its life faded away. It would have been like an ember separated from a fire, that landed where there is no fuel to maintain it, and it would have grown cold and “die”. So your fervor to believe what is obviously an impossibility, is useless and illogical.

Gerald writes: [Are you willing to go to any lengths to believe what you want to believe? Even to the point of refusing to accept what is truth? “That’s what we observe.]

Thanks once again for failing to address the logical paradox you created. If life comes from life, and order comes from order, where did your god come from? To no one’s surprise you continue to make irrational claims that you don’t support when confronted about them. Your repeated attempts to add another layer to the onion without resolving any questions is duly noted by all that peruse this site…

Gerald writes: [Non-life in certain structures can have the property of “life”.” This like every thing else that the Atheist comes up with come out without any kind of proof. They, you make statements but for some reason you all feel that the need to produce the proof to substantiate your statements are unnecessary.]

You are the proof, Gerald. Let’s review the facts:
1) Every single atom and molecule in the universe does not contain a property that we would call “life”. You can’t refute this, and haven’t for over a year now. Every atom of matter is non-living.
2) Every single thing we consider “alive” is made up entirely of non-living atoms. You can’t refute this, and haven’t for over a year now. All living things are made out of non-living atoms.
3) Structures give rise to properties that don’t come from the individual pieces of those structures. You can’t refute this, and haven’t for over a year now. I’ve explained numerous times how an oxygen atom or gold atom has properties that arise from the structure and number of protons, neutrons, and electrons in the atom. The protons, neutrons, and electrons are not “gold” nor or they “oxygen”, yet the properties of gold and oxygen appear when the structure is formed.

These things are facts. Look it up if you don’t believe me.

Gerald writes: [You know that “Non life in certain structures can have the property of life” has no proof.]

Every living thing, made up entirely of non-living components, is the proof. It’s a fact that every atom in your body is not alive. I can’t understand why you are having difficulty grasping this. Please read a chemistry book of your choosing if you don’t believe me.

Gerald writes: [And even if it did have a resemblance of life, break down just how it would have been possible for this almost life to be able to perform all that you say you believe it was able to do with out the necessary programming to be able to guide it through the necessary lengths it would have needed to perform, (knowingly or innately), so to ensure its survival.]

You mean like a virus? There’s a real world example of what you are trying to describe. It just finds chemical bonding points with host cells and makes copies of itself. This has been pointed out to you previously by the way, not sure why you conveniently forgot it during your latest rant.

Gerald writes: [If it came without some intelligence making it, it would have merely remained where it came to be until its life faded away. It would have been like an ember separated from a fire, that landed where there is no fuel to maintain it, and it would have grown cold and “die”. So your fervor to believe what is obviously an impossibility, is useless and illogical.]

Yet viruses are still around. So are replicating molecules – non living things that make copies of itself. You keep making these ignorant claims about how things work and the real world shows that you are clueless about reality. Time to hunker down and start reading science material at those local university libraries like we’ve been begging you to do since the start of 2016…

“Thanks once again for failing to address the logical paradox you created. If life comes from life, and order comes from order, where did your god come from? To no one’s surprise you continue to make irrational claims” Now how long will you continue to place the irrational blame my way. You say I am irrational. And that may be. But that doesn’t mean that you are not thinking irrationally. Your thinking that a spark of life is the answer as to how life started, is all together not what we have observed in the years that man has walked upon this planet. We have observed that life gave life. You are ignoring that observation. One that you can attest to. One that your parents can attest to. One that has never been observed to be anything differently. All you have to go on, is that someone came up with an assumption that it could have been differently. But there is no proof to that assumption. It hasn’t been duplicated in a laboratory. So, the Atheist, and some of the Evolutionists are hoping that we will just forget all those years of what has been observed and hang our hats upon something that someone has made up. Yea, made up, maybe just as made up as the God thing. Maybe He is made up. But at least we are not ignoring the fact, FACT, that life has only come from life. And that each species only produces its own species. You can say maybe this or maybe that about everything else that we have not observed, but for what all these thousands of years that we have observed, we can not just toss it out the window. Flush it down the toilet. And that is exactly what you are doing when you ignore that life comes only from life. Now, go back to the drawing board and see if you can come up with some other plausible explanation then the one that the Creationist has come up with. One that doesn’t include the fact that life comes only from life, and then maybe the Creationist will look at it and won’t laugh at the bunk like the theory of Evolution. Incorporate life comes from life into your theory and you’ll be another step closer to thinking logically.

“Yet viruses are still around. So are replicating molecules – non living things that make copies of itself.” Yes and all doing something that has been programmed inside them to do. Not something that they would have needed billions and billions of years to blindly, with no direction, fall into being able to do. Once again. YOU all of you want to claim, “all it needs is time” to do. Yet, you don’t want to logically deduce that if something did ever just come into being that it would never have been able to last billions of years to survive and morph into some other, what ever kind of life that could have somehow learned to subdivide or innately direct itself to become something that could make itself or will itself to know what to do, what to be. Time is on no mans side. Time waits for no man. And only an intelligence, can utilize time to their advantage. Either by an innate source of knowledge or by learning so. So a suddenly appearing life force would have had neither. I don’t understand why you won’t address this issue. You skirt around it. As if the logic is beyond your comprehension. Everything that has life, simple to complex, has been programmed to react to circumstances. And it appears that the more simpler the organism, the more original programming it needed to survive and achieve its objective. And for those more complex organisms the less programming needed to be passed on, so that it could receive programming as it went along. So that very simple, yet to be life force that magically appeared had neither to depend on. It could not have been directed by any kind of programming passed on from some ancestor because it had no ancestor. And if it wasn’t sent to be then it did not have preprogramming objectives for it to achieve. So, you can not possibly be able to say that life just happened. It couldn’t have. And that leaves only one other possibility. And that is that some kind of intelligence set it, and therefore all other life into being. Logic. It works.

Post navigation

About

Have a question for an atheist? Ever wonder what atheists think about morality, faith, science, etc.? How do atheists live their lives without a god? How do they know right from wrong? Are they just angry at god? Do they really NOT believe?

Hopefully this site will give you all of the answers you are looking for and more. Asktheatheist.com is a joint project where all atheists are encouraged to answer questions in either text, audio, or video formats. Think you have a better way to explain it ? Share it with everyone! The idea is to have a variety of answers for each question, and thus find a variety of ways to open people up to understanding atheism and atheists.